CAR_Public/120320.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, March 20, 2012, Vol. 14, No. 56

                             Headlines

AIG: Liberty Mutual to Dispute Class Action Settlement
AMERIGROUP CORP: Inks Consolidated Employment Suit Settlement
AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: "Krueger" Plaintiffs File Amended Complaint
APPLE: Faces Class Action Over Mobile App Privacy Policy
ARBITRON INC: Settles New York Securities Suit for $7 Million

AT&T INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of NSA Intelligence Suits
AT&T INC: Continues to Defend Two Wage and Hour Class Suits
AT&T INC: Continues to Defend "Stoffels" Class Suit in Texas
AT&T INC: Unit Continues to Defend "MBA Surety" Suit in Missouri
ATTUNE FOODS: Sued Over Chocolate Probiotic Bars' False Claims

CADENCE DESIGN: Awaits Final Approval of Consolidated Suit Deal
COASTAL INT'L: Judge Rejects Ex-Civilian Guards' Class Action
CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Royalty Fee Suit Discovery Still Ongoing
DENTSPLY INT'L: Bid to Dismiss Hildebrand Complaint Still Pending
DENTSPLY INT'L: Cavitron Suit Still Pending in San Francisco

EQUINIX INC: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss "Cement Masons" Suit
EQUINIX INC: Consolidated IPO-Related Class Suit Now Concluded
FORD MOTOR: Sued Over Defective Pickup Fuel Tank Linings
GE MONEY: Faces Class Suit Over Property in Daly City, Calif.
GEORGIA GULF: Faces Consolidated Shareholder Class Suit

GOOGLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Defective Android Phone Apps
IMPERIAL TOBACCO: Former Executive Testifies in Class Action
INFORMATICA CORP: Appeals From IPO Suit Deal Remain Pending
J.B. HUNT: Awaits Calif. Sup. Ct. Ruling on Similar Suit
JUNIPER NETWORKS: Amended Complaint Filed in Securities Suit

JUNIPER NETWORKS: Securities MDL in New York Now Settled
KAWASAKI MOTORS: Recalls 3,900 Utility Vehicles Due to Fire Risk
LITHIA MOTORS: Continues to Defend "Neese" Class Suit in Alaska
LITHIA MOTORS: Still Awaits Approval of Text Messages Suit Deal
NEVSUN RESOURCES: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Class Action

NORTHERN TRUST: Continues to Defend Suits Over Servicing Business
NORTHERN TRUST: Still Defends Securities Class Suit in Illinois
PACIFIC CAPITAL: Faces Shareholder Class Action in California
PRICELINE.COM INC: Consolidated Securities Suit Appeals Resolved
RAJOPAL S. MENON: Lawyer to Appeal Class Action Ruling

SCIQUEST INC: IPO-Related Class Suit Now Concluded
SOLUTIA INC: Faces Consolidated Merger-Related Suit in Delaware
SOLUTIA INC: Faces Merger-Related Stockholder Suit in Missouri
SOLUTIA INC: Still Defends W.G. Krummrich Site-Related Suits
STATE OF FLORIDA: Sued Over Medically Fragile Children Cost Cuts

SUR LA TABLE: Accused of Not Providing Employees' Rest Breaks
SYCAMORE NETWORKS: Consolidated IPO-Related Suit Now Concluded
W.R. GRACE: Zonolite Products-Related Suits Remain Pending
ZELTIQ: Faces Shareholder Class Action in California Over IPO

* N.Y. Senator Urges FTC to Probe Mobile App Privacy Breaches
* Securities Class Action Settlements Hit Record Low in 2011


                          *********

AIG: Liberty Mutual to Dispute Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------
Young Ha, writing for Insurance Journal, reports that Liberty
Mutual said it will continue its legal fight even after a federal
judge formally approved a $450 million workers' compensation
class-action settlement between AIG and its rival companies.

The class action alleged that American International Group (AIG)
and its subsidiaries had intentionally under-reported workers'
comp premiums to state regulators for decades, in an attempt to
pay smaller premium taxes and residual market charges before 1996.

In the class action, insurers said AIG's scheme hurt them
financially because AIG, with its under-reporting, was allowed a
smaller share of the high-risk residual market assessments.

According to the settlement, formally approved by U.S. District
Court Judge Robert Gettleman on Feb. 28, AIG will pay $450
million, which will be divided up among commercial insurers that
were affected by AIG's alleged scheme.

The settlement class was certified in July 2011 by Judge Gettleman
and the $450 million settlement was given preliminary approval
last December.

But Liberty Mutual, one of the insurers in the class action,
argues that the settlement is inadequate.  The current settlement
assumes that AIG under-reported its workers' comp premiums by $2.1
billion, an amount that the opponents of the settlement are
calling too small.

"Liberty Mutual is disappointed -- but not surprised -- with the
Judge's final written order approving the settlement.  Liberty
Mutual has filed an appeal," Liberty Mutual spokesman Richard
Angevine told Insurance Journal.

"We respectfully and vigorously disagree that the settlement is
fair, reasonable and adequate.  The settlement was negotiated by
conflicted parties and it is unfair because it reflects damages of
$2.1 billion, far less than the $6.1 billion in actual damages
demonstrated by the court-approved statistical model."

Mr. Angevine added: "Liberty Mutual remains committed to making
sure that AIG is held accountable for knowingly under-reporting
workers compensation premiums to various insurance pools for more
than two decades."

Those in favor of the current settlement include AIG as well as
Hartford Financial Services Group, Travelers Indemnity, Technology
Insurance, Ace Ina Holdings, Auto-Owners Insurance, Companion
Property & Casualty Insurance and Firstcomp Insurance.


AMERIGROUP CORP: Inks Consolidated Employment Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
AMERIGROUP Corporation entered into an agreement in principle to
resolve a consolidated employment class action lawsuit pending in
New York, according to the Company's February 24, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011.

On November 22, 2010, Hamel Toure, a former AMERIGROUP New York,
LLC marketing representative, filed a putative collective and
class action complaint against AMERIGROUP Corporation and
AMERIGROUP New York, LLC in the United States District Court,
Eastern District of New York.  Subsequently, another lawsuit,
styled Andrea Burch, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. AMERIGROUP Corporation and AMERIGROUP New
York, LLC, was consolidated with the Toure case.

The Second Amended Class Action Complaint with respect to these
consolidated cases alleges, inter alia, that the plaintiffs and
certain other employees should have been classified as non-exempt
employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and during
the course of their employment should have received overtime and
other compensation under the FLSA from October 22, 2007 until the
entry of judgment and under the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") from
October 22, 2004, until the entry of judgment.  The Complaint
requests certification of the NYLL claims as a class action under
Rule 23, designation of the FLSA claims as a collective action, a
declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, an award of unpaid
overtime compensation, an award of liquidated damages under the
FLSA and NYLL, pre-judgment interest, as well as costs, attorneys'
fees, and other relief.

On February 2, 2012, the Company reached an agreement in principle
with the plaintiffs to settle the litigation.  The anticipated
settlement, which is reflected in the Company's audited
Consolidated Financial Statements for the year ended December 31,
2011, did not have a material impact on the Company's financial
position, results of operations or cash flows.  The terms of the
final settlement are subject to court approval and there can be no
assurance that the court will approve such settlement.


AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL: "Krueger" Plaintiffs File Amended Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the putative class action lawsuit entitled Roger
Krueger, et al. vs. Ameriprise Financial Inc., et al. filed an
amended complaint on February 7, 2012, according to the Company's
February 24, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

In October 2011, a putative class action lawsuit entitled Roger
Krueger, et al. vs. Ameriprise Financial, et al. was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota against
the Company, certain of its present or former employees and
directors, as well as certain fiduciary committees on behalf of
participants and beneficiaries of the Ameriprise Financial 401(k)
Plan.  The alleged class period is from October 1, 2005, to the
present.  The action alleges that Ameriprise breached fiduciary
duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA") by selecting and retaining primarily proprietary mutual
funds with allegedly poor performance histories, higher expenses
relative to other investment options, and improper fees paid to
Ameriprise Financial, Inc. or its subsidiaries.  The action also
alleges that the Company breached fiduciary duties under ERISA
because it used its affiliate Ameriprise Trust Company as the Plan
trustee and record-keeper and improperly reaped profits from the
sale of the record-keeping business to Wachovia Bank, N.A.
Plaintiffs allege over $20 million in damages.  On January 17,
2012, all defendants filed a brief and other documents in support
of their motion to dismiss the complaint.  Plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint on February 7, 2012.  An amended briefing and
hearing schedule for the motion to dismiss this amended complaint
will be set by the court.


APPLE: Faces Class Action Over Mobile App Privacy Policy
--------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Laughlin at Digital Spy reports that technology, gaming and
social media firms, including Facebook, Apple, Twitter and
Electronic Arts, are facing a class action lawsuit in the US over
the use of people's private data on mobile apps.

Following recent high-profile controversies over privacy policies
on mobile apps, 13 plaintiffs have now filed the legal action in
the Western Division of the US District Court, Austin Division,
against some of the biggest players in the multi-billion dollar
apps market.

In the court filing, they list 18 companies in total: Apple,
Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, Path, Angry Birds maker Rovio, social
games firm Chillingo, Electronic Arts, Yelp!, Gowalla (now owned
by Facebook), Foursquare, Foodspotting, Instagram, Burbn (maker of
Instagram), Beluga, Hipster, Zeptolab and Kik Interactive.

The lawsuit -- reported in full by TechCrunch -- was lodged on
March 12, the same day that internet giant Yahoo filed legal
papers against Facebook over alleged infringement of ten of its
patents.

Lawyers representing the plaintiffs have also opted to launch the
legal action in the same week as SXSW Interactive in Austin, a
major gathering of technology enthusiasts and representatives of
the companies targeted.

The strongly-worded, 152-page complaint details the
"surreptitious" gathering of information about consumers on mobile
apps produced by the companies, along with the need to prevent
this from continuing to happen on smartphones and tablets.

Apple is listed because the firm has allowed the alleged
information-gathering to occur via its iOS App Store.  Google,
which operates the app store on Android devices, and online
retailer Amazon are also mentioned in the text, but not included
as defendants.

The lawsuit notes that it is "effectively impossible" to develop
an app for Apple's iPhone, iPad and iPod Touch without getting
Apple's consent, and the firm can reject proposed apps or request
modifications.

It said: "For example, Apple has rejected Apps for competitive
reasons -- such as if the third-party App duplicates an Apple App
-- and occasionally even for moral reasons, with Apple's CEO Steve
Jobs having notably said, 'We do believe we have amoral
responsibility to keep porn off the iPhone . . . folks who want
porn can buy an Android phone'."

Since 2010, Apple's own App Store guidelines have prevented apps
from transmitting data about a user without obtaining their "prior
permission and providing the user with access to information about
how and where the data will be used".

There have been no confirmed scandals as yet of apps using data
for anything other than their express function, such as linking
users up with their friends, or using the device's location to
present a range of specific information.

However, social network Path recently apologized after criticism
of the way the firm's mobile app shared data, and pledged to
better explain its practices to users in future.

The plaintiffs, most of whom live in Austin, do not indicate the
level of damages they are seeking if the case actually goes to
court.  But the lawyers mention statutory damages that could run
into tens of thousands of dollars for each violation found.


ARBITRON INC: Settles New York Securities Suit for $7 Million
-------------------------------------------------------------
Arbitron Inc. settled for $7 million a securities class action
lawsuit pending in New York, according to the Company's
February 24, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

On April 30, 2008, Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union No. 630
Pension-Annuity Trust Fund filed a securities class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of a purported Class of all purchasers of
Arbitron common stock between July 19, 2007, and November 26,
2007.  The plaintiff asserts that Arbitron, Stephen B. Morris (the
Company's former Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer),
and Sean R. Creamer (currently the Company's Executive Vice
President, Chief Operating Officer and formerly Chief Financial
Officer) violated federal securities laws.  The plaintiff alleges
misrepresentations and omissions relating, among other things, to
the delay in commercialization of the Company's Portable People
Meter (PPM) ratings service in November 2007, as well as stock
sales during the period by company insiders who were not named as
defendants and Messrs. Morris and Creamer.  The plaintiff sought
class certification, compensatory damages plus interest and
attorneys' fees, among other remedies.  On September 22, 2008, the
plaintiff filed an Amended Class Action Complaint.  On November
25, 2008, Arbitron, Mr. Morris, and Mr. Creamer each filed Motions
to Dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint.  In September 2009,
the plaintiff sought leave to file a Second Amended Class Action
Complaint in lieu of oral argument on the pending Motions to
Dismiss.  The court granted leave to file a Second Amended Class
Action Complaint and denied the pending Motions to Dismiss without
prejudice.  On or about October 19, 2009, the plaintiff filed a
Second Amended Class Action Complaint.  Briefing on motions to
dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint was completed in
March 2010.  Arbitron and each of Mr. Morris and Mr. Creamer again
moved to dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint.

On September 24, 2010, the Court granted Mr. Creamer's motion to
dismiss the plaintiff's claims against him, and all claims against
Mr. Creamer were dismissed with prejudice.  The motions to dismiss
the Second Amended Class Action Complaint by Arbitron and Mr.
Morris were denied.  Arbitron and Mr. Morris each then filed
answers denying the claims.  On September 6, 2011, the Court
entered an order granting the plaintiff's motion to certify the
action as a class action, to appoint the lead plaintiff as class
representative, and to appoint its counsel as lead counsel.  The
court defined the class as all purchasers of common stock of the
Company who were damaged through purchasing stock during the
period July 19, 2007, through November 26, 2007.

On February 3, 2012, as a result of a mediation process overseen
by an independent mediator, the Company and its insurers agreed to
settle the case for $7 million, which will be funded by insurance.
Because this is a class action, settlements of this type are
subject to preliminary and final review by the Court with an
opportunity for class members to respond to the proposed
settlement and object if they so desire.  That process typically
takes 4-5 months and has not yet begun.

Columbia, Maryland-based Arbitron Inc. is a media and marketing
information services firm primarily serving radio, advertising
agencies, cable and broadcast television, advertisers, retailers,
out-of-home media, online media and print media.


AT&T INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of NSA Intelligence Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in
December 2011 the dismissal of lawsuits alleging AT&T Inc. and
other telecommunications carriers unlawfully provided assistance
to the National Security Agency in connection with intelligence
activities, according to the Company's February 24, 2012, Form 10-
K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011.

Twenty-four lawsuits were filed alleging that the Company and
other telecommunications carriers unlawfully provided assistance
to the National Security Agency in connection with intelligence
activities that were initiated following the events of
September 11, 2001.  In the first filed case, Hepting et al v.
AT&T Corp., AT&T Inc. and Does 1-20, a purported class action
filed in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of
California, plaintiffs alleged that the defendants disclosed and
are currently disclosing to the U.S. Government content and call
records concerning communications to which Plaintiffs were a
party.  Plaintiffs sought damages, a declaratory judgment and
injunctive relief for violations of the First and Fourth
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act (FISA), the Electronic Communications Privacy Act
and other federal and California statutes.  The Company filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint.  The United States asserted the
"state secrets privilege" and related statutory privileges and
also filed a motion asking the court to dismiss the complaint.
The court denied the motions, and the Company and the United
States appealed.  In August 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the district court without
deciding the issue in light of the passage of the FISA Amendments
Act, a provision of which addresses the allegations in these
pending lawsuits (immunity provision).  The immunity provision
requires the pending lawsuits to be dismissed if the Attorney
General certifies to the court either that the alleged assistance
was undertaken by court order, certification, directive or written
request or that the telecom entity did not provide the alleged
assistance.

In September 2008, the Attorney General filed his certification
and asked the district court to dismiss all of the lawsuits
pending against the AT&T Inc. telecommunications companies.  The
court granted the Government's motion to dismiss and entered final
judgments in July 2009.  In addition, a lawsuit seeking to enjoin
the immunity provision's application on grounds that it is
unconstitutional was filed.  In March 2009, the Company and the
Government filed motions to dismiss this lawsuit.  The court
granted the motion to dismiss and entered final judgment in July
2009.  All cases brought against the AT&T entities have been
dismissed.  In August 2009, plaintiffs in all cases filed an
appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  On December 29,
2011, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissals
in all cases.

Management believes that any further appeal is without merit and
intends to continue to defend these matters vigorously.

A Fortune 500 company, AT&T is one of the 30 stocks that make up
the Dow Jones Industrial Average.


AT&T INC: Continues to Defend Two Wage and Hour Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
AT&T Inc. continues to defend two wage and hour class action
lawsuits pending in California and Georgia, according to the
Company's February 24, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

Two wage and hour cases were filed in federal court in December
2009 each asserting claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act --
(Luque et al. v. AT&T Corp. et al., U.S. District Court in the
Northern District of California) and (Lawson et al. v. BellSouth
Telecommunications, Inc., U.S. District Court in the Northern
District of Georgia).  Luque also alleges violations of a
California wage and hour law, which varies from the federal law.
In each case, plaintiffs allege that certain groups of wireline
supervisory managers were entitled to paid overtime and seek class
action status as well as damages, attorneys' fees and/or
penalties.  Plaintiffs have been granted conditional collective
action status for their federal claims and also are expected to
seek class action status for their state law claims.  The Company
is contesting the collective and class action treatment of the
claims, the merits of the claims and the method of calculating
damages for the claims.  A jury verdict recently was entered in
favor of the Company in the U.S. District Court in Connecticut on
similar claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

The Company believes that an adverse outcome in these cases having
a material effect on its financial statements is unlikely.

A Fortune 500 company, AT&T is one of the 30 stocks that make up
the Dow Jones Industrial Average.


AT&T INC: Continues to Defend "Stoffels" Class Suit in Texas
------------------------------------------------------------
In May 2005, AT&T Inc. was served with a purported class action in
U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas (Stoffels v. SBC
Communications Inc.), in which the plaintiffs, who are retirees of
Pacific Bell Telephone Company, Southwestern Bell and Ameritech,
contend that the cash reimbursement formerly paid to retirees
living outside their company's local service area, for telephone
service they purchased from another provider, is a "defined
benefit plan" within the meaning of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).  In October 2006, the court
certified two classes.  In May 2008, the court ruled that the
concession was an ERISA pension plan.  In May 2009, the Company
filed a motion for reconsideration with the trial court.  That
motion was granted in January 2011, and a final judgment was
entered in the Company's favor.  Plaintiffs have appealed the
judgment to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.  In June 2011, the
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a similar cash
reimbursement program currently offered to out-of-region retirees
of BellSouth Corporation (BellSouth) is not a defined benefit
plan.  Plaintiffs in that case filed a petition in the United
States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari which the Supreme
Court denied in December 2011.

The Supreme Court's decision lends significant support to the
Company's belief that an adverse outcome having a material effect
on the Company's financial statements in this case is unlikely,
but the Company will continue to evaluate the potential impact of
this lawsuit on its financial results as it progresses.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 24,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

A Fortune 500 company, AT&T is one of the 30 stocks that make up
the Dow Jones Industrial Average.


AT&T INC: Unit Continues to Defend "MBA Surety" Suit in Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------------
In October 2010, AT&T Inc.'s wireless subsidiary was served with a
purported class action in Circuit Court, Cole County, Missouri
(MBA Surety Agency, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility, LLC), in which the
plaintiffs contend that the Company violated the rules of the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) by collecting Universal
Service Fees on certain services not subject to such fees,
including Internet access service provided over wireless handsets
commonly called "smartphones" and wireless data cards, as well as
collecting certain other state and local fees.  Plaintiffs define
the class as all persons who from April 1, 2003, until the present
had a contractual relationship with the Company for Internet
access through a smartphone or a wireless data card.  Plaintiffs
seek an unspecified amount of damages as well as injunctive
relief.

The Company believes that an adverse outcome having a material
effect on its financial statements in this case is unlikely.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 24,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

A Fortune 500 company, AT&T is one of the 30 stocks that make up
the Dow Jones Industrial Average.


ATTUNE FOODS: Sued Over Chocolate Probiotic Bars' False Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Russell Brattain, as an individual, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Attune Foods, Inc., Case No. 3:12-cv-01252
(N.D. Calif., March 13, 2012) alleges that Attune has made, and
continues to make, false and misleading statements in its
advertising and packaging of certain products, including Attune
Milk Chocolate Crisp Probiotic Bar, Attune Mint Chocolate
Probiotic Bar and Attune Dark Chocolate Probiotic Bar.

According to Attune's uniform and consistent claims in its
advertisements and labelings, use of the Product helps support a
healthy digestive and immune system, Mr. Brattain notes.  He
argues that this is false, deceptive, and misleading because
Attune has no competent and reliable scientific evidence to
support such claims.

Mr. Brattain is a resident of San Francisco, California.  He
purchased Attune's products in January 2012.

Attune, a Delaware corporation, manufactures, markets, advertises,
distributes and sells a chocolate bar in three flavors: Attune
Milk Chocolate Crisp Probiotic Bar, Attune Mint Chocolate
Probiotic Bar and Attune Dark Chocolate Probiotic Bar.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin M. Lopatin, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD W. RUBINSTEIN, P.A.
          One Embarcadero Center, Suite 500
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (800) 436-6437
          Facsimile: (415) 692-6607
          E-mail: lopatin@hwrlawoffice.com


CADENCE DESIGN: Awaits Final Approval of Consolidated Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cadence Design Systems, Inc. is awaiting final approval of its
settlement of a consolidated securities lawsuit pending in
California, according to the Company's February 24, 2012, Form 10-
K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011.

During fiscal 2008, three complaints were filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California, or
District Court, all alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of Cadence's common
stock.  The first such complaint was filed on October 29, 2008,
captioned Hu v. Cadence Design Systems, Inc., Michael J. Fister,
William Porter and Kevin S. Palatnik; the second such complaint
was filed on November 4, 2008, captioned Vyas v. Cadence Design
Systems, Inc., Michael J. Fister and Kevin S. Palatnik; and the
third such complaint was filed on November 21, 2008, captioned
Collins v. Cadence Design Systems, Inc., Michael J. Fister, John
B. Shoven, Kevin S. Palatnik and William Porter.  On March 4,
2009, the District Court entered an order consolidating these
three complaints and captioning the consolidated case "In re
Cadence Design Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation."  The District
Court also named a lead plaintiff and lead counsel for the
consolidated litigation.  The lead plaintiff filed its
consolidated amended complaint on April 24, 2009, naming Cadence,
Michael J. Fister, Kevin S. Palatnik, William Porter and Kevin
Bushby as defendants, and alleging violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of
Cadence's common stock who traded Cadence's common stock between
April 23, 2008, and December 10, 2008, or the Alleged Class
Period.  The amended complaint alleged that Cadence and the
individual defendants made statements during the Alleged Class
Period regarding Cadence's financial results that were false and
misleading because Cadence had recognized revenue that should have
been recognized in subsequent periods.  The amended complaint
requested certification of the action as a class action,
unspecified damages, interest and costs, and unspecified equitable
relief.  On June 8, 2009, Cadence and the other defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

On September 11, 2009, the District Court held that the plaintiffs
had failed to allege a valid claim under the relevant legal
standards and granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.  The District Court gave the plaintiffs leave
to file another amended complaint, and the plaintiffs did so on
October 13, 2009.  The amended complaint filed on October 13, 2009
names the same defendants, asserts the same causes of action, and
seeks the same relief as the earlier amended complaint.  Cadence
moved to dismiss the October 13, 2009 amended complaint.  The
District Court denied the motion to dismiss on March 2, 2010.  On
July 7, 2010, the parties agreed, and the District Court ordered,
that the litigation be stayed in order to facilitate mediation.
On February 11, 2011, the parties to the securities litigation
agreed to settle the securities litigation for consideration of
$38.0 million, of which approximately $22.2 million will be paid
by Cadence's insurance carriers, with the balance to be paid by
Cadence.  Cadence agreed to this settlement without admitting any
wrongdoing on the part of the company or any of its current or
former directors or executive officers, and the settlement is
subject to approval by the District Court.  The District Court
preliminarily approved the settlement on
November 15, 2011.  Notice of the settlement was given to class
members pursuant to the District Court's preliminary approval
order, and a hearing for final approval of the settlement was set
for February 24, 2012.

During fiscal 2011, Cadence paid $16.4 million into a securities
litigation settlement fund, which amount included Cadence's
portion of the settlement consideration of $15.8 million and $0.6
million of accrued interest.  As of December 31, 2011, $22.2
million had been paid into the securities litigation settlement
fund by Cadence's insurance carriers.


COASTAL INT'L: Judge Rejects Ex-Civilian Guards' Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brett Barrouquere, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
a federal judge on March 13 rejected a proposed class-action
settlement between former civilian guards at Fort Campbell and
Fort Knox and one of the nation's largest private security
companies.  The agreement had been reached over a retention bonus
that was promised, but later rescinded after the guards signed new
contracts.

U.S. District Judge Thomas B. Russell ruled that the guards at the
two military posts couldn't be accommodated in a single settlement
because of differences in their claims.

"There are greatly divergent interests between class members
because the claims of the two groups are of different strengths
and therefore command a different settlement value," Judge Russell
wrote.

The ruling stems from a lawsuit brought by former Fort Campbell
guard Kenneth Callender of Clarksville, Tenn., and former Fort
Knox guard Ginger Starrett, of Radcliff, against Coastal
International Security.  The Lorton, Va.-based company provides
guards to the departments of State, Homeland Security and Defense.

Messrs. Callender and Starrett said Coastal International offered
guards a $1,500 bonus to stay on the job, but pulled the offer
once the guards signed a new contract.

Messages left for Messrs. Callender's and Starrett's attorney,
Rowdy Meeks of Kansas City, Mo., and for Coastal International
were not immediately returned.

Under the proposed settlement, Coastal International would have
paid $61,080. Class members from Fort Campbell would have received
anywhere from $50 to $900, depending upon how long they worked
between July 2, 2010, and Sept. 20, 2010 before the company
rescinded the bonus offer.  Mr. Callender, as a class
representative, would have received $3,000 and Mr. Starrett would
have received $1,000.

Other than Mr. Starrett, the Fort Knox guards covered by the
settlement would have received nothing. The attorneys concluded
that the claims of the Fort Knox guards "appeared to be without
merit," Judge Russell wrote.

Messrs. Callender and Starrett say Coastal International offered
guards a $1,500 bonus to stay on the job, but pulled the offer
once the guards signed a new contract.

Judge Russell said an independent attorney would be needed to
review and protect the interests of the Fort Knox guards.

"Although the guards at Fort Knox were purportedly represented by
Class Representative Starrett, there is no assurance that Starrett
operated under a proper understanding of her representational
responsibilities," Judge Russell wrote.

Until Coastal International's contract expired at the end of
September 2010, the company employed 81 armed civilian guards at
Fort Knox and 168 at Fort Campbell, the sprawling military post on
the Kentucky-Tennessee state line.

The Installation Management Command, which oversees security
contracts, switched the job to government employees because
private contractors needed to be phased out by law by 2011.

Coastal International Security, a subsidiary of New Mexico-based
Akal Security, in June 2010 sent an e-mail to employees in the
Army Midwest region promising a $1,500 retention bonus for guards
who stayed on between the end of their contract and the switch to
government employees.

"This should help offset some financial difficulties faced by
employees whom ultimately will be laid off as a result of the
contract ending," wrote Larry T. Stacy, Coastal's Army program
manager.

Two months later, Mr. Stacy sent another e-mail informing
employees that the retention bonus would not be paid. But he
expressed hope that employees would continue until the company's
contract with the Army ended a month later.

"This action is being taken due to the government's unwillingness
to pay for the retention bonuses," Mr. Stacy wrote.


CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Royalty Fee Suit Discovery Still Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
In November 2010, an alleged class action was filed against the
Company alleging Continental Resources, Inc. improperly deducted
post-production costs from royalties paid to plaintiffs and other
royalty interest owners from crude oil and natural gas wells
located in Oklahoma.  The plaintiffs seek recovery of compensatory
damages, interest, punitive damages and attorney fees on behalf of
the alleged class.  The Company has responded to the petition,
denied the allegations and raised a number of affirmative
defenses.  Discovery has commenced and information and documents
are being exchanged.

The Company says it is not currently able to estimate what impact,
if any, the action will have on its financial condition, results
of operations or cash flows given the preliminary status of the
matter and uncertainties with respect to, among other things, the
nature of the claims and defenses, the potential size of the
class, the scope and types of the properties and agreements
involved, the production years involved, and the ultimate
potential outcome of the matter.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 24,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.


DENTSPLY INT'L: Bid to Dismiss Hildebrand Complaint Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On December 12, 2006, a Complaint was filed against DENTSPLY
International Inc. by Carole Hildebrand, DDS, and Robert Jaffin,
DDS, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (the Plaintiffs
subsequently added Dr. Mitchell Goldman as a named class
representative).  The case was filed by the same law firm that
filed the Weinstat case in California.  The Complaint asserts
putative class action claims on behalf of dentists located in New
Jersey and Pennsylvania.  The Complaint seeks damages and asserts
that the Company's Cavitron(R) ultrasonic scaler was negligently
designed and sold in breach of contract and warranty arising from
misrepresentations about the potential uses of the product because
it cannot assure the delivery of potable or sterile water.
Plaintiffs have filed their motion for class certification to
which the Company has filed its response.  The Company also filed
other motions, including a motion to dismiss the claims of Drs.
Hildebrand and Jaffin for lack of standing.  The Court granted
this motion for lack of standing of the individuals and did not
allow the plaintiffs to amend the complaint to substitute their
corporate practices, leaving Dr. Goldman as a putative class
representative in Pennsylvania, raising a question of jurisdiction
of the U.S. District Court.  Subsequently, the Court issued an
Order dismissing this case on the grounds that it did not have
jurisdiction over the matter.  The plaintiffs filed a second
complaint after the Court granted the initial Motion for lack of
standing in which they named the corporate practices of Drs.
Hildebrand and Jaffin as class representatives.  The Company has
moved to dismiss this complaint and the Court has not yet ruled on
this Motion.

As of December 31, 2011, the Company says a reasonable estimate of
a possible range of loss related to the litigation cannot be made.
In the event that one or more of these matters is unfavorably
resolved, it is possible the Company's results from operations
could be materially impacted.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 24,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.


DENTSPLY INT'L: Cavitron Suit Still Pending in San Francisco
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit over alleged misrepresentation of
Cavitron(R) ultrasonic scalers is still pending in San Francisco,
DENTSPLY International Inc. disclosed in its February 24, 2012,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2011.

On June 18, 2004, Marvin Weinstat, DDS, and Richard Nathan, DDS,
filed a class action lawsuit in San Francisco County, California,
alleging that the Company misrepresented that its Cavitron(R)
ultrasonic scalers are suitable for use in oral surgical
procedures.  The Complaint seeks a recall of the product and
refund of its purchase price to dentists who have purchased it for
use in oral surgery.  The Court certified the case as a class
action in June 2006 with respect to the breach of warranty and
unfair business practices claims.  The class that was certified is
defined as California dental professionals who purchased and used
one or more Cavitron(R) ultrasonic scalers for the performance of
oral surgical procedures.  The Company filed a motion for
decertification of the class and this motion was granted.
Plaintiffs appealed the decertification of the class to the
California Court of Appeals and the Court of Appeals reversed the
decertification decision of the trial Court.  The case was
remanded to and is pending in the San Francisco County Court.  As
the result of several hearings, the Judge has held that the class
period will be from 2000 to the present and the class will be
defined as dentists who "purchased and used the Cavitron for oral
surgery".  Based on his ruling, the Class Notice, which likely
will be mailed sometime in March, will go to dentists licensed to
practice in California during the class period from 2000 to the
present.


EQUINIX INC: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss "Cement Masons" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Equinix, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its motion to
dismiss a securities class action lawsuit commenced by Cement
Masons & Plasterers Joint Pension Trust, according to the
Company's February 24, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

On March 4, 2011, an alleged class action entitled Cement Masons &
Plasterers Joint Pension Trust v. Equinix, Inc., et al., No. CV-
11-1016-SC, was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, against Equinix and two of its
officers.  The lawsuit asserts purported claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for
allegedly misleading statements regarding the Company's business
and financial results.  The lawsuit is purportedly brought on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between July
29, 2010, and October 5, 2010, and seeks compensatory damages,
fees and costs.  Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on November
7, 2011, and a hearing on the motion to dismiss was set for
February 24, 2012.

Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company says
it cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome of the matter,
and is unable at this time to determine whether the outcome of the
litigation would have a material impact on its results of
operations, financial condition or cash flows.


EQUINIX INC: Consolidated IPO-Related Class Suit Now Concluded
--------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated securities class action lawsuit over Equinix,
Inc.'s initial public offering has been concluded, according to
the Company's February 24, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

On July 30, 2001, and August 8, 2001, putative shareholder class
action lawsuits were filed against the Company, certain of its
officers and directors (the "Individual Defendants"), and several
investment banks that were underwriters of the Company's initial
public offering (the "Underwriter Defendants").  The cases were
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  Similar lawsuits were filed against
approximately 300 other issuers and related parties.  These
lawsuits have been coordinated before a single judge.  The
purported class action alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b), Rule 10b-5 and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company
and the Individual Defendants.  The plaintiffs have since
dismissed the Individual Defendants without prejudice.  The
lawsuits allege that the Underwriter Defendants agreed to allocate
stock in the Company's initial public offering to certain
investors in exchange for excessive and undisclosed commissions
and agreements by those investors to make additional purchases in
the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.  The plaintiffs allege
that the prospectus for the Company's initial public offering was
false and misleading and in violation of the securities laws
because it did not disclose these arrangements.  The action seeks
damages in an unspecified amount.  On
February 19, 2003, the court dismissed the Section 10(b) claim
against the Company, but denied the motion to dismiss the Section
11 claim.

The parties in the approximately 300 coordinated cases, including
the parties in the Equinix case, reached a settlement.  It
provides for releases of existing claims and claims that could
have been asserted relating to the conduct alleged to be wrongful
from the class of investors participating in the settlement.  The
insurers for the issuer defendants in the coordinated cases will
make the settlement payment on behalf of the issuers, including
Equinix.  On October 6, 2009, the Court granted final approval to
the settlement.  The settlement approval was appealed to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  One appeal
was dismissed and the second appeal was remanded to the District
Court to determine if the appellant is a class member with
standing to appeal.  The District Court ruled that the appellant
lacked standing.  The appellant appealed the District Court's
decision to the Second Circuit.

On January 9, 2012, appellant entered into a settlement agreement
with counsel for the plaintiff class pursuant to which he
dismissed his appeal with prejudice.  As a result, the settlement
among the parties in the IPO Litigation is final and the case is
concluded.


FORD MOTOR: Sued Over Defective Pickup Fuel Tank Linings
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that multiple year models of Ford
E-Series and F-Series pickups have defective fuel tank linings
that flake off and clog the fuel system, causing sudden loss of
power, according to a federal class action.

A copy of the Complaint in Coba, et al. v. Ford Motor Company,
Case No. 12-cv-_____, docketed as Doc. 14385 in Case No. 33-av-
00001 on March 14, 2012 (D. N.J.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/15/FordCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joel Glucksman, Esq.
          Harold Friedman, Esq.
          SCARINCI HOLLENBECK, LLC
          1100 Valley Brook Avenue
          PO Box 790
          Lyndhurst, NJ 07071
          Telephone: (201) 896-4100
          E-mail: jglucksman@scarincihollenbeck.com
                  hfriedman@scarincihollenbeck.com

               - and -

          Gene Williams, Esq.
          Sue J. Kim, Esq.
          Alexandria Witte, Esq.
          INITIATIVE LEGAL GROUP APC
          1800 Century Park East, 2nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-5637
          E-mail: gwilliams@initiativelegal.com
                  skim@initiativelegal.com
                  awitte@initiativelegal.com



GE MONEY: Faces Class Suit Over Property in Daly City, Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carolina Bilbaeno, individuals, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. GE Money Bank, as the Original
Lender; Westwood Associates, as the Original Trustee; WMC Mortgage
Corp. Title Company; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as the PSA Master
Servicer; Bank of America, National Association PSA Sponsor and
Seller; Asset Backed Funding Corporation, as PSA Depositor; U.S.
Bank National Association, as PSA Trustee; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
PSA Custodian; ABFC 2007-WMCI Trust, as the PSA Trust Issuing
Entity; Old Republic Default Management Services, as the
Foreclosing Trustee; Cecelia Knox, as Assistant Secretary of MERS,
Inc.; James C. Morris the Notary of the Assignment of Deed of
Trust; and Does 1 through 100, Inclusive, Case No. 3:12-cv-01234
(N.D. Calif., March 12, 2012) is brought for declaratory judgment,
injunctive and equitable relief, and for compensatory, special,
general and punitive damages in connection with an alleged
mortgage on the Plaintiff's property.

The Plaintiff disputes the title and ownership of a real property
located at 393 Barbara Ln., in Daly City, California, in that the
originating mortgage lender and others alleged to have ownership,
have unlawfully sold, assigned and transferred their ownership and
security interest in a promissory note and deed of trust related
to the Property, and thus, do not have lawful ownership or a
security interest in the Property.  The Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendants cannot show proper receipt, possession, transfer,
negotiations, assignment and ownership of the borrower's original
Promissory Note and Deed of Trust, resulting in imperfect security
interests and claims.

Ms. Bilbaeno is a resident of the county of San Mateo, California.

GE Money is the Originator of the loan involving the Property.
WMC, as the title company, oversaw the recording and processing of
both Deed of Trust and Promissory Note.  Westwood, as the original
trustee, oversaw the recording and processing of both Deed of
Trust and Promissory Note.  Bank of America, the PSA Sponsor and
Seller, is the present purported Securitization Seller of a
portion of the mortgage loans.  Wells Fargo, the PSA Servicer, is
the present purported Master Servicer of the mortgage.  Asset
Backed Funding, the depositor, is the present purported
Securitization Depositor of the mortgage.  U.S. Bank is the
present purported PSA Trustee and Custodian of the mortgage.
Wells Fargo is the present purported PSA Trustee and Custodian of
the mortgage.  ABFC is the present purported PSA Issuing Trust of
the mortgage.  Old Republic, a national financial services
association, is the purported foreclosing trustee.  Ms. Knox, as
Executor of the recorded Assignment of Deed of Trust and
Substitution of Trustee as Assistant Secretary of MERS, is
suspected as Robo-Signor.  The Plaintiff does not know the true
names and capacities of the Doe Defendants.  The Plaintiff alleges
that the Defendants are purported participants in the imperfect
securitization of the Note and Deed of Trust, and in fraud on the
Plaintiff in the origination of the Note.

The Plaintiff is not represented by any law firm.


GEORGIA GULF: Faces Consolidated Shareholder Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Georgia Gulf Corporation is facing a consolidated shareholder
class action lawsuit in Georgia, according to the Company's
February 24, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

On January 18, 2012, a putative shareholder class action styled
Mark James v. Georgia Gulf Corporation, et al., was filed against
Georgia Gulf and the individual members of its board of directors
(collectively, the "Board") in the Superior Court of DeKalb
County, Georgia.  The complaint generally alleges that the Board
breached its fiduciary duties to Georgia Gulf shareholders by,
among other things, refusing to enter into meaningful negotiations
with Westlake Chemical Corporation ("Westlake") in connection with
Westlake's unsolicited proposal (the "Proposal"), refusing
Westlake's request to perform certain due diligence, and adopting
a shareholder rights plan (the "Rights Plan") as a defense to the
Proposal.  The complaint seeks, among other things, a declaration
that the defendants have breached fiduciary duties owed to Georgia
Gulf shareholders, injunctive relief directing the defendants to
consider and respond in good faith to acquisition offers that
would maximize value to Georgia Gulf shareholders, an injunction
against initiation of further defensive measures against
acquisitions, damages, and costs and attorneys' fees associated
with the action.

On January 31, 2012, a second putative shareholder class action
styled Wilbert B. Morales, Jr. v. Paul D. Carrico, et al., was
filed against the Board in the Superior Court of DeKalb County,
Georgia.  The complaint generally alleges that the Board breached
its fiduciary duties to Georgia Gulf shareholders by, among other
things, refusing to enter into meaningful negotiations with
Westlake in connection with the Proposal, failing to consider all
available information and alternate transactions, and adopting the
Rights Plan as a defense to the Proposal.  The complaint seeks,
among other things, an injunction preventing the Board from
breaching fiduciary duties owed to Georgia Gulf shareholders or
initiating any defensive measures against the Proposal, an
injunction directing the Board to rescind the Rights Plan and/or a
declaration that the Rights Plan is invalid, imposition of a
constructive trust, and costs and attorneys' fees associated with
the action.

On February 15, 2012, the Superior Court of DeKalb County,
Georgia, entered an order consolidating the two actions.  Under
the order, the plaintiffs will file a consolidated amended
complaint.  None of the defendants are under any obligation to
answer or otherwise respond to any previously filed complaints.

Georgia Gulf believes the alleged claims are without merit, and
intends to vigorously defend these matters.


GOOGLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Defective Android Phone Apps
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that Google fails
to test Android phone programs for its online store, and then will
not refund customers who purchase defective apps, a federal class
claims.

Lead plaintiffs Dodd Harris and Stephen Sabatino say that
misconduct in the Google Play Store, formerly known as Google
Android Market, amounts to unfair and fraudulent business
practices.  They want damages and an injunction.

"Defendant engaged in deceptive and unfair practices by misleading
purchasers of the applications into believing that all of the
applications available for purchase in the Google Play Store
controlled by defendant were in working order, were compatible
with all Android phones, and functioned as represented," the
complaint states.

"Defendant controls the Google Play Store, the software for which
comes preinstalled on Android phones, and retains a substantial
portion (30 percent) of the revenue from the sale of each
application as a transaction fee," the class says.  "To the
detriment of application purchasers, defendant maintained no
quality control, safety parameters or regulations concerning the
sale of applications in the Google Play Store."

Mr. Harris says that he paid $4.83 in the store for a "worthless"
application to learn Chinese.  Mr. Sabatino claims he spent $4.99
on a defective BitTorrent client.

"In contrast," the Apple iTunes App Store for the iPhone and the
Amazon Appstore for Android both test the functionality of the
applications they sell, the class says.

"Based upon Google's control over the Google Play Store, and
Google's reputation as a leader in the technology industry,
purchasers of applications believed they were downloading safe and
secure software from Google that would function on their Android
phones as represented," according to the complaint.  "In fact,
many applications do not function at all or do not function as
represented in the Google Play Store.  Although Google is aware
that it is selling many applications which do not function as
represented, once a consumer purchases an application from the
Google Play Store, it is almost impossible to return the
application for a refund."

The plaintiffs are represented by Jeffrey Berns with Berns Weiss
of Woodland Hills, Calif.  They filed suit for breach of implied
warranty of merchantability, and unfair and fraudulent business
practices.

Google and Does 1-100 are named as defendants.

Berns Weiss did not immediately respond to a request for an
interview.  A Google spokesperson declined to comment.

A copy of the Complaint in Harris, et al. v. Google, Inc., et al.,
Case No BC480854 (Calif. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.), is
available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/15/Google.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffrey K. Berns, Esq.
          Alan J. Cooper, Esq.
          BERNS WEISS LLP
          20700 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 140
          Woodland Hills, CA 91364
          E-mail: jberns@law111.com
                  acooper@law111.com

               - and -

          Lee A. Weiss, Esq.
          BERNS WEISS LLP
          626 RXR Plaza
          Uniondale, NY 11556
          Telephone: (818) 961-2000
          E-mail: lweiss@bernweiss.com


IMPERIAL TOBACCO: Former Executive Testifies in Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
William Marsden, writing for The Montreal Gazette, reports that
despite mounting evidence in the 1960s that smoking tobacco was
killing more than 30,000 people in Canada every year, Canada's
largest tobacco company made no effort to inform the public about
the dangers of its products, a former Imperial Tobacco executive
testified on March 13 in the $27-billion class-action lawsuit
against the nation's three largest tobacco companies.

Michel Descoteaux, who for years served as Imperial's official
spokesperson, said the company's policy was to claim that there
was no scientific evidence linking smoking to disease.

He said that because of this policy the company had "no
credibility" with the public.

"The reputation of the company was very bad," he said.  "Public
opinion was that cigarettes were causing all kinds of diseases."

He added that the company "had no credibility even among smokers."

He said, however, that he believed that "everything Imperial
Tobacco communicated to the public was true."

When plaintiff lawyer Bruce Johnston asked him if smoking's lethal
results were ever discussed by the company, Mr. Descoteaux
replied: "I have no recollection of a specific moment when the
question of does the product kill or not kill (came up)."

Referring to the statistical evidence of the dangers of smoking,
he said that "you could drive a truck through the whole thing
anyway."

Mr. Descoteaux said he began working for Imperial Tobacco in 1963
and for the last at least 20 years was its only spokesperson.  He
retired in 2002.  He said outside the courtroom that after his
retirement he stopped smoking.

He said that during the 1960s and 1970s he was aware of no tobacco
company in the world that admitted that smoking caused diseases
such as cancer and emphysema.

The class action revolves around when the tobacco companies knew
or should have known about the potential danger of their products
and what they did about it.

Mr. Descoteaux said his personal beliefs evolved with the policy
of the company, and added that if his opinions had been opposed to
the company's position, he would not have lasted long at Imperial
Tobacco.

He said the company's public statements evolved over the years
from total denial of a direct relationship between smoking and
cancer to admitting that some people contracted some diseases
because of smoking.  He was unable to pinpoint a date when the
company admitted that smoking caused cancer and other diseases.

When Mr. Johnston asked him why he didn't make it his job to find
out the truth about smoking and disease, he said: "That's a good
question."

He added, however, "I got my information from people who were
serious and honest."

Mr. Descoteaux is a thin man of medium height with a snow-white
beard.  Throughout his testimony, he often joked with Mr. Johnston
and his answers frequently meandered and avoided questions.

At one point, he claimed that he had very little to do with
setting Imperial policy and that these policies were set according
to the advice of scientists.  Yet in a memo he wrote in 1981, he
recommended that the company not follow advice from Imperial's
major stockholder, British American Tobacco, that employees follow
doctors' advice not to smoke while pregnant.

He wrote in the memo employees should be told that "in the absence
of definitive answers to this question, many doctors advice (sic)
their pregnant patients to modify their smoking habits during
pregnancy as a sensible part of prenatal behavior."  He added that
advising employees to follow the advice of their doctors "could
open the door to claims for warnings on cigarette packages."

Mr. Descoteaux testified that he was "amazed that I wrote
something as strong as that."

"So are we," Mr. Johnston replied.

Mr. Descoteaux is the plaintiff's first witness.

Rothmans Benson & Hedges and JTI McDonald are also defendants in
the case, which could last up to two years.

The case involves two classes of plaintiffs.  One represents about
1.8 million smokers who claim damages of $10,000 per plaintiff for
their addiction.  The second involves 90,000 smokers who have
contracted cancer or emphysema.  They want $105,000 each.

                     How to Become a Claimant

There are two classes of plaintiffs:

The first class includes approximately 90,000 members who have
contracted emphysema or cancer of the lungs, throat or larynx.
They are seeking $105,000 each.  To join this class, claimants
must have smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day for five years and
contracted cancer or emphysema after 1998.  They have to have a
doctor's diagnosis to prove their case.

The second class comprises 1.8 million smokers who claim they have
an addiction and have been unable to quit.  They are demanding
$10,000 each.

Potential claimants should contact cqts.qc.ca/recours where they
will find a class action electronic form.


INFORMATICA CORP: Appeals From IPO Suit Deal Remain Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
On November 8, 2001, a purported securities class action complaint
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.  The case is entitled In re Informatica Corporation
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 01-9922
(SAS) (S.D.N.Y.), related to In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.).  Plaintiffs'
amended complaint was brought purportedly on behalf of all persons
who purchased the Company's common stock from April 29, 1999,
through December 6, 2000.  It names as defendants Informatica
Corporation, two of its former officers (together with the
Company, the "Informatica defendants"), and several investment
banking firms that served as underwriters of the Company's April
29, 1999 initial public offering (IPO) and September 28, 2000
follow-on public offering.  The complaint alleges liability as to
all defendants under Sections 11 and/or 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, on the grounds that the registration statements for
the offerings did not disclose that: (1) the underwriters had
agreed to allow certain customers to purchase shares in the
offerings in exchange for excess commissions paid to the
underwriters; and (2) the underwriters had arranged for certain
customers to purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at
predetermined prices.  The complaint also alleges that false
analyst reports were issued.  No specific damages are claimed.

Similar allegations were made in other lawsuits challenging more
than 300 other initial public offerings and follow-on offerings
conducted in 1999 and 2000.  The cases were consolidated for
pretrial purposes.  On February 19, 2003, the Court ruled on all
defendants' motions to dismiss.  The Court denied the motions to
dismiss the claims under the Securities Act of 1933.  The Court
denied the motion to dismiss the Section 10(b) claim against
Informatica and 184 other issuer defendants.  The Court denied the
motion to dismiss the Section 10(b) and 20(a) claims against the
Informatica defendants and 62 other individual defendants.

The Company accepted a settlement proposal presented to all issuer
defendants.  In this settlement, plaintiffs will dismiss and
release all claims against the Informatica defendants, in exchange
for a contingent payment by the insurance companies collectively
responsible for insuring the issuers in all of the IPO cases, and
for the assignment or surrender of control of certain claims the
Company may have against the underwriters.  The Informatica
defendants will not be required to make any cash payments in the
settlement, unless the pro rata amount paid by the insurers in the
settlement exceeds the amount of the insurance coverage.  Any
final settlement will require approval of the Court after class
members are given the opportunity to object to the settlement or
opt out of the settlement.

All parties in all lawsuits have reached a settlement, which will
not require the Company to contribute cash unless the pro rata
amount paid by the insurers in the settlement exceeds the amount
of the insurance coverage.  The Court gave preliminary approval to
the settlement on June 10, 2009, and gave final approval on
October 6, 2009.  Several objectors have filed notices of appeals
of the final judgment dismissing the cases upon the settlement.
The Company has not paid, and does not expect to pay in the
future, any amount towards the settlement.  As of December 31,
2011, the Company has not accrued or disclosed any amounts because
further losses are not considered probable or reasonably possible.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 24,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

Informatica Corporation (NASDAQ: INFA) -- http://informatica.com/
-- is an independent provider of data integration software.


J.B. HUNT: Awaits Calif. Sup. Ct. Ruling on Similar Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc., is awaiting a California
Supreme court decision on a case similar to class actions filed
against it by California-based drivers who allege claims for
unpaid wages, failure to provide meal and rest periods, according
to the Company's February 24, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2011.

J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc., is a defendant in certain
class-action allegations in which the plaintiffs are current and
former California-based drivers who allege claims for unpaid
wages, failure to provide meal and rest periods, and other items.
Further proceedings have been stayed in these matters pending the
California Supreme Court's decision in a case unrelated to the
Company's involving similar issues.  Oral arguments on this
unrelated but similar case were made in November 2011.  The
Company says it does not know when a decision will be published.
The Company cannot reasonably estimate at this time the possible
loss or range of loss, if any, that may arise from these lawsuits.


JUNIPER NETWORKS: Amended Complaint Filed in Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Omaha Police and Fire Retirement System and City of
Bristol Pension Fund, as lead plaintiffs, filed an amended
securities class action complaint against Juniper Networks, Inc.,
last month, according to Juniper's February 24, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011.

On August 15, 2011, a purported securities class action lawsuit,
captioned City of Royal Oak Retirement System v. Juniper Networks,
Inc., et al., Case No. 11-cv-04003-LHK, was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
naming the Company and certain of its officers and directors as
defendants.  The complaint alleges that the defendants made false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and
prospects.  On January 9, 2012, the Court appointed City of Omaha
Police and Fire Retirement System and City of Bristol Pension Fund
as lead plaintiff.  Lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on
February 13, 2012.  The amended complaint alleges that defendants
made false and misleading statements about Juniper's business and
future prospects, and failed to adequately disclose the impact of
certain changes in accounting rules.  The amended complaint
purports to assert claims for violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a)
and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5
on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired Juniper's
common stock between July 20, 2010, and July 26, 2011, inclusive.


JUNIPER NETWORKS: Securities MDL in New York Now Settled
--------------------------------------------------------
A securities multidistrict litigation involving Juniper Networks,
Inc., is now settled, the Company disclosed in its February 24,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

In December 2001, a class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Credit Suisse First Boston
Corporation, FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc., Royal Bank of
Canada (Dain Rauscher Wessels), SG Cowen Securities Corporation,
UBS Warburg LLC (Warburg Dillon Read LLC), Chase (Hambrecht &
Quist LLC), J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Lehman Brothers, Inc.,
Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith,
Incorporated (collectively, the "Underwriters"), Juniper Networks
Inc. and certain of Juniper Networks' officers.  This action was
brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock in
its initial public offering in June 1999 and the Company's
secondary offering in September 1999.  Specifically, among other
things, this complaint alleged that the prospectus pursuant to
which shares of common stock were sold in the Company's initial
public offering and the Company's subsequent secondary offering
contained certain false and misleading statements or omissions
regarding the practices of the Underwriters with respect to their
allocation of shares of common stock in these offerings and their
receipt of commissions from customers related to such allocations.
Various plaintiffs have filed actions asserting similar
allegations concerning the initial public offerings of
approximately 300 other issuers.  These various cases pending in
the Southern District of New York have been coordinated for
pretrial proceedings as In re Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, 21 MC 92.  In April 2002, the plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint in the action against the Company,
alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The defendants in the
coordinated proceeding filed motions to dismiss.  On February 19,
2003, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to
dismiss, but declined to dismiss the claims against the Company.

The parties have reached a global settlement of the litigation.
Under the settlement, the insurers are to pay the full amount of
settlement share allocated to the Company, and the Company will
bear no financial liability.  The Company and other defendants
will receive complete dismissals from the case.  In October 2009,
the Court entered an Opinion and Order granting final approval of
the settlement.  Certain objectors appealed; these appeals have
now been dismissed or withdrawn.  As a result, the case is now
settled.


KAWASAKI MOTORS: Recalls 3,900 Utility Vehicles Due to Fire Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
About 3,900 utility vehicles were voluntarily recalled by Kawasaki
Motors Corp. USA, of Irvine, California, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.  Consumers should stop
using the product immediately unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The fuel tube can scrape against the air cleaner housing and
develop holes, posing a fire hazard.

Kawasaki has not received any reports of incidents or injuries.

The vehicles are model year 2012 Kawasaki four-wheeled, off-
highway utility vehicles with side-by-side seating for two people
and automobile style controls.  Each model has a bench seat, a
rollover protection structure and a cargo bed.  The vehicles are
available in the colors green, red, black and camouflage.  The
following models are being recalled:

   MODEL NAME        MODEL NUMBERS    COLORS
   ----------        -------------    ------
   MULE 600          KAF400BCF        Green
   MULE 610 4x4      KAF400ACF        Red or Green
   MULE 610 4x4 XC   KAF400DCF or     Black or Camouflage
                     KAF400ECF

The brand name appears on the sides and tailgate of the cargo bed
and the model name appears on the sides of the front cowl.  The
model number can be found on a label under the seat, which flips
up.  The abbreviation "4WD" also appears on the sides of the of
the cargo bed of the 610 models.  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml12/12727.html

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold at Kawasaki dealers nationwide from June 2011 to
February 2012 for between $6,700 and $8,200.

Consumers should immediately stop using these vehicles and contact
their Kawasaki dealer to schedule a free inspection and repair.
For more information, contact Kawasaki between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00
p.m. Pacific Time Monday through Friday toll-free at (866) 802-
9381 or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.kawasaki.com/.
Kawasaki is contacting its customers directly.


LITHIA MOTORS: Continues to Defend "Neese" Class Suit in Alaska
---------------------------------------------------------------
In December 2006, a lawsuit was filed against Lithia Motors, Inc.
(Jackie Neese, et al vs. Lithia Chrysler Jeep of Anchorage, Inc,
et al, Case No. 3AN-06-13341 CI), and in April, 2007, a second
case (Jackie Neese, et al vs. Lithia Chrysler Jeep of Anchorage,
Inc, et al, Case No. 3AN-06-4815 CI) (now consolidated)), in the
Superior Court for the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District at
Anchorage.  In the lawsuits, plaintiffs alleged that the Company,
through its Alaska dealerships, engaged in three practices that
purportedly violate Alaska consumer protection laws: (i) charging
customers dealer fees and costs (including document preparation
fees) not disclosed in the advertised price, (ii) failing to
disclose the acquisition, mechanical and accident history of used
vehicles or whether the vehicles were originally manufactured for
sale in a foreign country, and (iii) engaging in deception,
misrepresentation and fraud by providing to customers financing
from third parties without disclosing that the Company receive a
fee or discount for placing that loan (a "dealer reserve").  The
lawsuit seeks statutory damages of $500 for each violation (or
three times plaintiff's actual damages, whichever is greater), and
attorney fees and costs and the plaintiffs sought class action
certification.

Before and during the pendency of these lawsuits, the Company
engaged in settlement discussions with the State of Alaska through
its Office of Attorney General with respect to the first two
enumerated practices.  As a result of those discussions, the
Company entered into a Consent Judgment subject to court approval
and permitted potential class members to "opt-out" of the proposed
settlement.  Counsel for the plaintiffs attempted to intervene
and, after various motions, hearings and an appeal to the state
Court of Appeals, the Consent Judgment became final.

Plaintiffs then filed a motion in November 2010 seeking
certification of a class for (i) the 339 customers who "opted-out"
of the state settlement, (ii) for those customers who did not
qualify for recovery under the Consent Judgment but were allegedly
eligible for recovery under the Plaintiffs' broader interpretation
of the applicable statutes and (iii) arguing that since the
State's lawsuit against the Company's dealerships did not address
the loan fee/discount (dealer reserve) claim, for those customers
who arranged their vehicle financing through the Company.  On June
14, 2011, the District Court granted Plaintiffs' motion to certify
a class without addressing either the merits of the claims or the
size of the class or classes.

The Company says it intends to defend the claims vigorously and do
not believe the novel "dealer reserve" claim has merit.  The
ultimate resolution of these matters cannot be predicted with
certainty, and an unfavorable resolution of any of the matters
could have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of
operations, financial condition or cash flows.

No further updates were reported in the Company's February 24,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.


LITHIA MOTORS: Still Awaits Approval of Text Messages Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lithia Motors, Inc. is still awaiting court approval of its $2.5
million settlement of a class action lawsuit commenced by Kevin
McClintic, according to the Company's February 24, 2012, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2011.

In April 2011, a third party vendor assisted the Company in
promoting a targeted "0% financing on used vehicles" advertising
campaign during a limited sale period.  The marketing included
sending a "Short Message Service" communication to cell phones (a
"text message") of the Company's previous customers.  The message
was sent to over 50,000 cell phones in 14 states.  The message
indicated that the recipients could "Opt-Out" of receiving any
further messages by replying "STOP," but, due to a technical
error, some recipients who responded requesting to be unsubscribed
nonetheless may have received a follow-on message.

On April 21, 2011, a Complaint for Damages, Injunctive and
Declaratory Relief was filed against the Company (Kevin McClintic
vs. Lithia Motors, 11-2-14632-4 SEA, Superior Court of the State
of Washington for King County) alleging the text messaging
activity violated State of Washington anti-texting and consumer
protection laws and the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
and seeking statutory damages of $500 for each violation, trebled,
plus injunctive relief and attorney fees.  The lawsuit seeks class
action designation for all similarly situated entities and
individuals.  The lawsuit has been removed to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle.

On July 5, 2011, a complaint was filed alleging nearly identical
claims, also seeking class action designation (Dan McLaren vs.
Lithia Motors, Civil # 11-810, United States District Court of
Oregon, Portland Division).  This case was stayed pending the
outcome of the McClintic matter by order of the court on or about
October 11, 2011.  The class representative in the McLaren case
also attempted to intervene in the McClintic case.  This
intervention motion was denied on October 19, 2011.

The Company participated in a mediation of the McClintic case and
has entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs, which
is subject to court approval.  Under this settlement agreement,
the Company agreed to pay a total of $2.5 million, all of which
such amounts will be reimbursed by the vendor pursuant to
contractual indemnification.  No assurances can be given that the
court will approve the settlement.

No further updates were reported in the Company's latest SEC
filing.


NEVSUN RESOURCES: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP and Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. have filed
a class action suit against Nevsun Resources Ltd. that alleges
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of
purchasers of the common shares of Nevsun during the period March
31, 2011 through February 6, 2012, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period the Company
made materially false and misleading statements and failed to
disclose that (a) Nevsun's mining at the Bisha Mine resulted in a
material amount of waste rock, rather than gold ore; (b) that gold
ore and gold from the Bisha Mine was materially less than the
amount estimated by the Company's model and defendants knew or had
reason to know this based on data routinely collected from the
Bisha Mine throughout the Class Period; (c) that Nevsun was
progressing through the ore body much more quickly than planned in
order to maintain gold production at a rate that would not reveal
to investors that the amount of gold at the Bisha Mine was
materially less than the Company's model; (d) that the Company was
aware that its model was materially defective because the actual
amounts of gold mined at Bisha did not reconcile with the
Company's model previously disseminated to the investing public;
and (e) Nevsun materially overstated its gold reserves at the
Bisha mine.

The complaint further alleges that on February 7, 2012, Nevsun
shocked investors when, before the market opened, the Company
issued a press release entitled "Nevsun 2012 Outlook Including
Production Guidance," in which the Company disclosed i) that it
had materially overstated gold reserves at the Bisha Mine by 30-
35%; ii) that the amount of gold to be produced in 2012 would be
about half of what Nevsun previously represented to investors; and
iii) that it would restate its proven reserves.  On February 7,
2012, following these disclosures, Nevsun's common shares declined
in price by $1.94 per share on the NYSE Amex, from a closing price
of $6.34 per share on February 6, 2012, to close at $4.40 per
share on February 7, 2012, a decline of nearly 31% on heavy
volume.

If you are a member of the proposed Class, you may move the court
no later than 60 days after March 15 to serve as a lead plaintiff
for the proposed Class.  You need not seek to become a lead
plaintiff in order to share in any possible recovery.

The case was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class and is
represented by Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP and Rigrodsky & Long,
P.A. For more information about the complaint, or if you would
like to obtain a copy of the complaint, you may contact Kaplan Fox
-- http://www.kaplanfox.com-- or Rigrodsky & Long
http://www.rigrodskylong.com

If you have any questions about this Notice, the action, your
rights, or your interests, please contact:

        Jeffrey P. Campisi
        KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
        850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
        New York, New York 10022
        Telephone: (800) 290-1952
        Fax: (212) 687-7714
        E-mail: jcampisi@kaplanfox.com

        Laurence D. King
        KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
        350 Sansome Street, Suite 400
        San Francisco, California 94104
        Telephone: (415) 772-4700
        E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com

        Scott J. Farrell
        Timothy J. MacFall
        RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
        825 East Gate Boulevard, Suite 200
        Garden City, NY 11530
        Telephone: (516) 683-3516
        E-mail: tjm@rigrodskylong.com


NORTHERN TRUST: Continues to Defend Suits Over Servicing Business
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Northern Trust Corporation continues to defend class action
lawsuits in connection with its asset servicing business,
according to the Corporation's February 24, 2012, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2011.

A number of participants in the Corporation's securities lending
program, which is associated with the Corporation's asset
servicing business, have commenced either individual lawsuits or
putative class actions in which they claim, among other things,
that the Corporation failed to exercise prudence in the investment
management of the collateral received from the borrowers of the
securities, resulting in losses that they seek to recover.  The
cases assert various contractual, statutory and common law claims,
including claims for breach of fiduciary duty under common law and
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).  Based
on its review of these matters, the Corporation believes it
operated its securities lending program prudently and
appropriately.  The Corporation has also been cooperating fully
with an SEC investigation related to the Corporation's securities
lending program.  The Corporation says at this stage of these
proceedings, it is not possible for management to assess the
probability of a material adverse outcome or reasonably estimate
the amount of any potential loss.

Northern Trust Corporation is a financial holding company that
provides asset servicing, fund administration, asset management,
fiduciary and banking solutions for corporations, institutions,
families and individuals worldwide.  The Corporation conducts
business through various U.S. and non-U.S. subsidiaries, including
The Northern Trust Company (Bank).  The Corporation was founded in
1889 and is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.


NORTHERN TRUST: Still Defends Securities Class Suit in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
Northern Trust Corporation continues to defend a securities class
action lawsuit pending in Illinois, according to the Corporation's
February 24, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

On August 24, 2010, a lawsuit (hereinafter referred to as the
"Securities Class Action") was filed in federal court in the
Northern District of Illinois against the Corporation and three of
its present or former officers, including the present and former
Chief Executive Officers of the Corporation, on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of Corporation stock during the
period from October 17, 2007, to October 20, 2009.  The amended
complaint alleges that during the purported class period the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
by allegedly taking insufficient provisions for credit losses with
respect to the Corporation's real estate loan portfolio and
failing to make sufficient disclosures regarding its securities
lending business.  Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages in an
unspecified amount.

At this stage of the lawsuit, the Corporation says it is not
possible for management to assess the probability of a material
adverse outcome or reasonably estimate the amount of any potential
loss.

No further updates were reported in the Company's latest SEC
filing.

Northern Trust Corporation is a financial holding company that
provides asset servicing, fund administration, asset management,
fiduciary and banking solutions for corporations, institutions,
families and individuals worldwide.  The Corporation conducts
business through various U.S. and non-U.S. subsidiaries, including
The Northern Trust Company (Bank).  The Corporation was founded in
1889 and is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.


PACIFIC CAPITAL: Faces Shareholder Class Action in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Pacific Capital Bancorp's
controlling stockholder, Gerald Ford, and others are trying to
sell the company to UnionBanCal through an unfair process at an
unfair price -- $46 a share or $1.5 billion -- shareholders claim
in Superior Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Monty v. Ford, et al., Case No. 1385564
(Calif. Super. Ct., Santa Barbara Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/15/SCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq.
          Keith M. Cochran, Esq.
          CHAPIN, FITZGERALD, SULLIVAN, & BOTTINI, LLP
          550 West C Street, Suite 2000
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 241-4810
          E-mail: fbottini@cfsblaw.com


PRICELINE.COM INC: Consolidated Securities Suit Appeals Resolved
----------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals filed in a consolidated securities class action lawsuit
against priceline.com Incorporated have been resolved, according
to the Company's February 27, 2012 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2011.

On March 16, March 26, April 27, and June 5, 2001, respectively,
four putative class action complaints were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York naming
priceline.com, Inc., Richard S. Braddock, Jay Walker, Paul
Francis, Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., Merrill Lynch, Pierce,
Fenner & Smith, Inc., BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc. and
Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. as defendants (01 Civ. 2261, 01 Civ.
2576, 01 Civ. 3590 and 01 Civ. 4956).  Shives et al. v. Bank of
America Securities LLC et al., 01 Civ. 4956, also names other
defendants and states claims unrelated to the Company.
The complaints allege, among other things, that the Company and
the individual defendants violated the federal securities laws by
issuing and selling priceline.com common stock in the Company's
March 1999 initial public offering without disclosing to investors
that some of the underwriters in the offering, including the lead
underwriters, had allegedly solicited and received excessive and
undisclosed commissions from certain investors.  After extensive
negotiations, the parties reached a comprehensive settlement on or
about March 30, 2009.  On April 2, 2009, plaintiffs filed a Notice
of Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement.  On June 9,
2009, the court granted the motion and scheduled the hearing for
final approval for September 10, 2009. The settlement, previously
approved by a special committee of the Company's Board of
Directors, compromised the claims against the Company for
approximately $0.3 million.  The court issued an order
granting final approval of the settlement on October 5, 2009.
Notices of appeal of the Court's order have been filed with the
Second Circuit.  All of the appeals have now been resolved.


RAJOPAL S. MENON: Lawyer to Appeal Class Action Ruling
------------------------------------------------------
The Telegram reports that a St. John's lawyer involved in a class
action case against a doctor and hospital in New Brunswick plans
to appeal to a higher court.

Ches Crosbie represented clients in the case along with Ray Wagner
of Halifax, N.S.

A court in Miramichi dismissed the class action, which alleged the
doctor was incompetent.  The Court of Queen's Bench decision ruled
the doctor did not owe a duty to his patients to be competent.

"Most people in Canada would be surprised to learn that their
doctor does not owe them a duty of competence.  The decision
demands the attention of a higher court," Mr. Crosbie said in a
news release.

In 2007, the regional health authority in Miramichi suspended
pathologist Dr. Rajopal S. Menon.

As a result of external review, the hospital decided to send all
of Dr. Menon's surgical pathology slides from 1995 to 2007 for an
outside reading.  More than 23,000 specimens were reviewed,
involving 15,700 patients.  Almost all of the specimens involved
investigation for cancer or potential cancer.

Mr. Crosbie said lead plaintiff James Wilson of Miramichi had
biopsies taken which Dr. Menon reported as negative for prostate
cancer.  It was determined after the review Wilson was
misdiagnosed and after some delay, he was successfully treated for
the cancer.

The class action claims damages for mental distress on behalf of
all those patients whose diagnosis was questioned or was found to
be wrong, and personal injury damages for patients such as Mr.
Wilson, who suffered serious medical harm.

The Queen's Bench decision refused to certify the action to
proceed as a class action.  Individual class members may still
bring individual actions, although to date nobody has, Mr. Crosbie
said.

"The barriers to justice for claims which are not part of a class
action are too high," he said.

The allegations in the civil suit have not yet been proven in
court.


SCIQUEST INC: IPO-Related Class Suit Now Concluded
--------------------------------------------------
The consolidated securities lawsuit arising from SciQuest, Inc.'s
initial public offering has been concluded, according to the
Company's February 24, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

In 2001, the Company was named as a defendant in several
securities class action complaints filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York originating
from its December 1999 initial public offering.  The complaints
alleged, among other things, that the prospectus used in the
Company's December 1999 initial public offering contained material
misstatements or omissions regarding the underwriters' allocation
practices and compensation and that the underwriters manipulated
the aftermarket for the Company's stock.  These complaints were
consolidated along with similar complaints filed against over 300
other issuers in connection with their initial public offerings.
After several years of litigation and appeals related to the
sufficiency of the pleadings and class certification, the parties
agreed to a settlement of the entire litigation, which was
approved by the Court on October 5, 2009.  Notices of appeal to
the Court's order were filed by various appellants, all of which
have been withdrawn.

A Stipulation of Dismissal was filed on January 9, 2012, which
concluded this matter.  The Company says it did not incur
significant costs in connection with its defense of these claims
since this litigation is covered by its insurance policy.  The
resolution of this matter has not had an impact on the Company's
financial position and, therefore, it has not accrued a contingent
liability as of December 31, 2009, 2010 and 2011.


SOLUTIA INC: Faces Consolidated Merger-Related Suit in Delaware
---------------------------------------------------------------
Solutia Inc. is facing a consolidated stockholder class action
lawsuit in Delaware in connection with its proposed merger with an
Eastman Chemical Company subsidiary, according to the Company's
February 24, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

On January 26, 2012, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Eastman Chemical
Company ("Eastman") and Eagle Merger Sub Corporation ("Merger
Sub"), a wholly owned subsidiary of Eastman.  The Merger Agreement
provides for the merger of Merger Sub with and into Solutia, with
Solutia surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary of Eastman (the
"Merger").

On February 7, 2012, a purported stockholder class action
complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware, captioned John C. Dewan v. Solutia Inc., et al., Case
No. 7226-VCL.  The complaint names as defendants Solutia, each
member of the Company's Board of Directors (the "Individual
Defendants"), Eastman and Merger Sub.  The complaint generally
alleges, among other things, that the Individual Defendants
violated their fiduciary duties by failing to properly value
Solutia, failing to take steps to maximize the value of Solutia to
its public shareholders, and agreeing to terms in the Merger
Agreement that favor Eastman and deter alternative bids.  The
complaint also alleges that Eastman and Merger Sub aided and
abetted these purported breaches of fiduciary duties.  The relief
sought includes, among other things, an injunction prohibiting
consummation of the Merger and attorneys' fees and costs.  The
Company believes the plaintiffs' allegations lack merit and will
vigorously contest them.

On February 14, 2012, a purported stockholder class action
complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware, captioned Joseph C. Huttemann v. Jeffry N. Quinn, et
al., Case No. 7243 (the "Huttemann Action").  The complaint names
as defendants the Individual Defendants, Solutia, Eastman and
Merger Sub.  The complaint generally alleges, among other things,
that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by
failing to take steps to maximize the value of Solutia to its
public shareholders, failing to properly value Solutia, agreeing
to allegedly preclusive deal protection devices, and ignoring or
not protecting against their own purported conflicts of interest.
The complaint also alleges that Solutia, Eastman and Merger Sub
aided and abetted these purported breaches of fiduciary duties.
The relief sought includes, among other things, an injunction
prohibiting the consummation of the Merger, rescission of the
Merger (to the extent the Merger has already been consummated),
and attorneys' fees and costs.  Solutia believes the plaintiff's
allegations lack merit and will vigorously contest them.

On February 14, 2012, a purported stockholder class action
complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware, captioned David Wolfe v. Solutia Inc. et al., Case No.
7244.  The complaint names as defendants Solutia, the Individual
Defendants, Eastman and Merger Sub.  The complaint generally
alleges, among other things, that the Individual Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by failing to take steps to
maximize the value of Solutia to its public shareholders, failing
to properly value Solutia, agreeing to allegedly preclusive deal
protection devices, and vesting themselves with benefits that are
not shared with the public shareholders.  The complaint also
alleges that Solutia and Eastman aided and abetted these purported
breaches of fiduciary duties.  The relief sought includes, among
other things, an injunction prohibiting the consummation of the
Merger, rescission of the Merger (to the extent the Merger has
already been consummated), and attorneys' fees and costs.  Solutia
believes the plaintiff's allegations lack merit and will
vigorously contest them.

On February 21, 2012, the Delaware Court of Chancery entered an
order consolidating the three purported stockholder class action
complaints filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware, captioned John C. Dewan v. Solutia Inc., et al., Case
No. 7226-VCL, Joseph C. Huttemann v. Jeffry N. Quinn, et al., Case
No. 7243, and David Wolfe v. Solutia Inc. et al., Case No. 7244.
The consolidated case is captioned In re Solutia Inc. Shareholders
Litigation, Case No. 7226-VCL, and the complaint filed in the
Huttemann Action is designated as the operative complaint.


SOLUTIA INC: Faces Merger-Related Stockholder Suit in Missouri
--------------------------------------------------------------
Solutia Inc. is facing a purported stockholder class action
lawsuit in Missouri over its proposed merger with an Eastman
Chemical Company subsidiary, according to the Company's
February 24, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

On January 26, 2012, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Eastman Chemical
Company ("Eastman") and Eagle Merger Sub Corporation ("Merger
Sub"), a wholly owned subsidiary of Eastman.  The Merger Agreement
provides for the merger of Merger Sub with and into Solutia, with
Solutia surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary of Eastman (the
"Merger").

On February 2, 2012, a purported stockholder class action
complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County in
the State of Missouri, captioned Jennifer Howard v. Solutia Inc.,
et al., Case No. 12SL-CC00381.  The complaint names as defendants
the Individual Defendants, Eastman, and Solutia.  The complaint
generally alleges that the Individual Defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by failing to take steps to maximize the value of
Solutia to its public shareholders and that Eastman aided and
abetted these purported breaches of fiduciary duties.  The
complaint also includes a derivative claim on behalf of Solutia
that the defendants violated and breached their fiduciary duties
of care, loyalty, reasonable inquiry, oversight, good faith and
supervision owed to Solutia.  The relief sought includes, among
other things, an injunction prohibiting the consummation of the
Merger, rescission of the Merger (to the extent the Merger has
already been consummated), and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company believes the plaintiffs' allegations lack merit and
will vigorously contest them.


SOLUTIA INC: Still Defends W.G. Krummrich Site-Related Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Solutia Inc. continues to defend lawsuits arising from its W.G.
Krummrich facility in Sauget, Illinois, according to the Company's
February 24, 2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2011.

On February 10, 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
in the Circuit Court of St. Clair County, Illinois, against the
Company, Pharmacia Corporation, Monsanto Company and two other
unrelated defendants alleging the contamination of the plaintiff's
property from polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dioxins, furans
and other hazardous substances emanating from the defendants'
facilities in Sauget, Illinois (including the Company's W.G.
Krummrich site in Sauget, Illinois).  The proposed class action is
comprised of residents who live within a two-mile radius of the
Sauget facilities.  The plaintiffs are seeking damages for medical
monitoring and the costs associated with remediation and removal
of alleged contaminants from their property.  This action is one
of several lawsuits (primarily filed by the same plaintiffs'
counsel) filed in 2009 and 2010 regarding alleged historical
contamination from the W.G. Krummrich site.

In addition to the purported class action lawsuit, twenty
additional individual lawsuits have been filed since February 2009
against the same defendants (including the Company) comprised of
claims from over one thousand individual residents of Illinois who
claim they suffered illnesses and/or injuries as well as property
damages as a result of the same PCBs, dioxins, furans and other
hazardous substances allegedly emanating from the defendants'
facilities in Sauget.  In June 2010, a group of approximately
1,200 plaintiffs also filed wrongful death claims in a lawsuit in
the Circuit Court of St. Clair County arising out of contamination
from the defendants' facilities.  Moreover, four additional
individual lawsuits comprised of claims from twelve plaintiffs
were filed between January and April 2010 in the Circuit Court of
Madison County, Illinois, alleging that plaintiffs suffered
illnesses resulting from exposure to benzene, PCBs, dioxins,
furans and other hazardous substances.  Lastly, on June 14, 2010,
a second purported class action lawsuit was filed in the Circuit
Court of St. Louis City, Missouri against the same defendants
alleging the contamination of the plaintiffs' property from PCBs,
dioxins, furans and other hazardous substances emanating from the
defendants' facilities in Sauget, Illinois, and from the Company's
now-closed Queeny plant in St. Louis.  The plaintiffs are seeking
damages for medical monitoring and the costs associated with
remediation and removal of alleged contaminants from their
property.  The proposed class members include residents
exclusively within the state of Missouri.

Upon assessment of the terms of the Monsanto Settlement Agreement
and other defenses available to it, the Company believes the
probability of an unfavorable outcome to the Company on the Putnam
County, West Virginia; Escambia County, Florida; and St. Clair
County, Illinois, and related litigation against the Company is
remote and, accordingly, the Company has not recorded a loss
contingency.  Nonetheless, if it were subsequently determined
these matters are not within the meaning of Legacy Tort Claims, as
defined in the Monsanto Settlement Agreement, or other defenses to
the Company were unsuccessful, it is reasonably possible the
Company would be liable for an amount which cannot be estimated
but which could have a material adverse effect on its consolidated
financial statements.

No further updates were reported in the Company's latest SEC
filing.


STATE OF FLORIDA: Sued Over Medically Fragile Children Cost Cuts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marimer Matos at Courthouse News Service reports that Florida's
boneheaded attempt to save money by sending medically fragile
children to nursing homes instead of providing care at their homes
will cost the state more money in the long run, six families say
in a federal class action.

The families say Florida violated the American Disability Act
because it "unlawfully shifted the burden for providing skilled
nursing services to the parents or caregivers of children who are
not skilled nurses."  The defendant state agencies are forcing
sick children to go to nursing homes, though "the overall costs to
institutionalize all of the plaintiffs and plaintiff class members
in nursing facilities is more than the overall costs of providing
at home care," according to the complaint.

Many of the six medically fragile child plaintiffs "are on
tracheotomies, gastrotomy tubes and ventilators," according to the
complaint.  Citing the Florida Administrative Code, the complaint
states: "A Medically Fragile Child is one who is medically complex
and whose medical condition is of such a nature that he is
technologically dependent, requiring medical apparatus or
procedures to sustain life, e.g., requires total parenteral
nutrition (TPN), is ventilator dependant, or is dependent on a
heightened level of medical supervision to sustain life, and
without such services is likely to expire without warning."

There are about 250 child Medicaid recipients in Florida nursing
facilities, and another 3,300 child Medicaid recipients at risk of
being placed in Florida nursing homes, and "defendants have
adopted uniform policies, practices, and regulations to reduce
private duty nursing services," according to the complaint.

Named as defendants are Secretary of the Agency for Health Care
Administration Elizabeth Dudek, State Surgeon General and
Secretary of the Florida Department of Health Dr. Harry Frank
Farmer Jr., Deputy Secretary of the Florida Department of Health
and Director of Children's Medical Services Kristina, and eQHealth
Solutions, a Louisiana nonprofit that contracts with Florida to
make "medical necessity decisions."

The families say: "The defendants have developed regulations,
rules, customs, practices, policies, acts, and omissions of
reducing the prescribed medically necessary services to medically
fragile children to the point that the plaintiffs' caregivers
cannot provide safe and appropriate care to the plaintiffs and
plaintiff class.  For example:

"'Florida Medicaid does not reimburse private duty nursing
services provided solely for the convenience of the child, the
parents or the caregiver.'  This restriction is based on the
regulatory definition of 'medically necessary,' found at Rule 59G-
1.010(166)(a), Fla. Admin. Code, which states, in part, that
medically necessary services must '[b]e furnished in a manner not
primarily intended for the convenience of the recipient, the
recipient's caretaker, or the provider.'  Defendants adopted this
policy without the authority of any similar federal Medicaid
policy, rule or statute, giving defendants a basis to deny private
duty nursing service hours that have been prescribed by plaintiff
and plaintiff class members' treating physicians.  eQHealth and
AHCA's application of this policy is forcing parents and
caregivers to institutionalize their children.

"'Private duty nursing services will be decreased over time as
parents and caregivers are taught skills to care for their child
and are capable of safely providing that care or as the child's
condition improves.'  Defendants adopted this policy without the
authority of any similar federal Medicaid policy, rule or statute,
giving defendants a basis to deny private duty nursing services
that have been prescribed by plaintiff and plaintiff class
members' treating physicians.  Plaintiff and plaintiff class
members' conditions will not improve over time, yet eQHealth and
AHCA have routinely denied services even where plaintiff and
plaintiff class members' needs have not decreased.

"Parents and caregivers of plaintiffs and plaintiff class members
are not capable of safely providing the required care because they
are not medical professionals and/or are not available to provide
the services at the required level or duration.  Plaintiff and
plaintiff class members are at risk of being placed in a nursing
home because defendants have unlawfully shifted the burden for
providing skilled nursing services to the parents or caregivers of
children who are not skilled nurses.  In contrast, there are not
similar regulations, rules, customs, practices, policies, acts,
and omissions utilized to deny benefits and to unnecessarily
institutionalize and segregate similarly situated adults with
disabilities.

"eQHealth and AHCA have a pattern and practice of denying or
reducing services at each certification period without regard to
the child's condition.

"The overall costs to institutionalize all of the plaintiffs and
plaintiff class members in nursing facilities is more than the
overall costs of providing at home care.

"Defendants have and continue to make cuts in plaintiffs' and
class members' services which have placed them at risk of
unnecessary institutionalization in nursing facilities."

The families seek declaratory judgment that Florida is refusing
"to provide medically necessary services and reasonable
accommodations" and want the state ordered to reinstate private
nursing services.

A copy of the Complaint in A.R., et al. v. Dudek, et al., Case No.
12-cv-60460 (S.D. Fla.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/15/FlaKids.pdf

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew W. Dietz, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MATTHEW W. DIETZ, P.L.
          2990 SW 35th Ave.
          Miami, FL 33133
          Telephone: (305) 669-2822
          E-mail: matthewdietz@usdisabilitylaw.com

               - and -

          Paolo G. Annino, Esq.
          FSU COLLEGE OF LAW PUBLIC INTEREST LAW CENTER
          425 W. Jefferson Street
          Tallahassee, FL 32306
          Telephone: (850) 644-9928
          E-mail: pannino@law.fsu.edu

               - and -

          Jamie Ito, Esq.
          Edward J. Grunewald, Esq.
          Jill B. Zaborske, Esq.
          THE NORTH FLORIDA CENTER FOR EQUAL JUSTICE, INC.
          2121 Delta Blvd.
          Tallahassee, FL 32303
          Telephone: (850) 701-3980
          E-mail: jamie@nfcfej.org
                  egrunewald@nfcfej.org
                  jill@nfcfej.org


SUR LA TABLE: Accused of Not Providing Employees' Rest Breaks
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Palm, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Sur La Table, Inc., a Corporation, and Does 1-25, Case No. CGC-
12-518159 (Calif. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty.) alleges that Sur
La Table violated state wage and hour laws by, inter alia, failing
to provide rest breaks, failing to provide accurate wage
statements, and failing to pay unpaid wages immediately upon
discharge.

Specifically, Mr. Palm alleges that he and the putative class
members were owed (i) "premium wages" on the missed rest breaks,
(ii) penalties and attorney's fees for failure to provide accurate
wage statements, and for failure to pay unpaid wages
immediately upon discharge, and (iii) all applicable penalties
arising from the alleged unlawful conduct.

Mr. Palm is a resident of California.

Sur La Table is a corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Washington with its principal place of business in
Seattle, Washington.

The Company removed the lawsuit on March 13, 2012, from the
Superior Court of the state of California, County of San
Francisco, to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.  The Company argues that the removal is
proper because the parties are citizens of different states.  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:12-cv-01250 to the
proceeding.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michele L. Maryott, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          3161 Michelson Drive
          Irvine, CA 92612-4412
          Telephone: (949) 451-3800
          Facsimile: (949) 451-4220
          E-mail: MMaryott@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Lynn Hang, Esq.
          333 S. Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1512
          Telephone: (213) 229-7000
          Facsimile: (213) 229-7520
          E-mail: LHang@gibsondunn.com


SYCAMORE NETWORKS: Consolidated IPO-Related Suit Now Concluded
--------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated class action lawsuit over Sycamore Networks, Inc.'s
public offerings is now concluded, according to the Company's
February 24, 2012, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
January 28, 2012.

Beginning on July 2, 2001, several purported class action
complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York ("District Court") against the
Company and several of its officers and directors (the "Individual
Defendants") and the underwriters for the Company's initial public
offering on October 21, 1999.  Some of the complaints also include
the underwriters for the Company's follow-on offering on March 14,
2000.  An amended complaint, which is the operative complaint, was
filed on April 19, 2002, on behalf of persons who purchased the
Company's common stock between October 21, 1999, and December 6,
2000.  The amended complaint alleges claims against the Company,
several of the Individual Defendants and the underwriters for
violations under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended (the "Securities Act"), primarily based on the
assertion that the Company's lead underwriters, the Company and
several of the Individual Defendants made material false and
misleading statements in the Company's Registration Statements and
Prospectuses filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or
the SEC, in October 1999 and March 2000 because of the failure to
disclose (a) the alleged solicitation and receipt of excessive and
undisclosed commissions by the underwriters in connection with the
allocation of shares of common stock to certain investors in the
Company's public offerings and (b) that certain of the
underwriters allegedly had entered into agreements with investors
whereby underwriters agreed to allocate the public offering shares
in exchange for which the investors agreed to make additional
purchases of stock in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.
It also alleges claims against the Company, the Individual
Defendants and the underwriters under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, primarily based
on the assertion that the Company's lead underwriters, the Company
and the Individual Defendants defrauded investors by participating
in a fraudulent scheme and by making materially false and
misleading statements and omissions of material fact during the
period in question.  The amended complaint seeks damages in an
unspecified amount.  The action against the Company is being
coordinated with approximately three hundred other nearly
identical actions filed against other companies.  Due to the large
number of nearly identical actions, the court has ordered the
parties to select up to twenty "test" cases.  The Company's case
was selected as one such test case.

The parties in the approximately 300 coordinated cases, including
the Company's case, reached a settlement.  The insurers for the
issuer defendants in the coordinated cases will make the
settlement payment on behalf of the issuers, including the
Company.  On October 5, 2009, the District Court granted final
approval of the settlement.  The settlement approval was appealed
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  One
appeal was dismissed and the second appeal was remanded to the
district court to determine if the appellant was a class member
with standing to appeal.  The District Court ruled that the
appellant lacked standing.  The appellant appealed the District
Court's decision to the Second Circuit.  Subsequently, appellant
entered into a settlement agreement with counsel for the plaintiff
class pursuant to which the appeal was dismissed with prejudice.
As a result, the settlement among the parties in the IPO
Litigation is final and the case against the Company and the
Individual Defendants is concluded.


W.R. GRACE: Zonolite Products-Related Suits Remain Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Lawsuits arising from Zonolite(R) Attic Insulation, W. R. Grace &
Co.'s former attic insulation product, remains stayed because of
the Company's bankruptcy filing, according to its February 24,
2012, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2011.

On April 2, 2001, Grace, along with 61 of its United States
subsidiaries and affiliates, filed voluntary petitions for
reorganization under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy
Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of
Delaware.  The cases are being jointly administered under case
number 01-01139.  The Company's non-U.S. subsidiaries and certain
of its U.S. subsidiaries were not included in the bankruptcy
filing.

The plaintiffs in asbestos property damage lawsuits generally seek
to have the defendants pay for the cost of removing, containing or
repairing the asbestos-containing materials in the affected
buildings.  Various factors can affect the merit and value of PD
Claims, including legal defenses, product identification, the
amount and type of product involved, the age, type, size and use
of the building, the legal status of the claimant, the
jurisdictional history of prior cases, the court in which the case
is pending, and the difficulty of asbestos abatement, if
necessary.

Out of 380 asbestos property damage cases (which involved
thousands of buildings) filed prior to the Filing Date, 16 remain
unresolved.  Eight cases relate to ZAI and eight relate to a
number of former asbestos-containing products (two of which also
are alleged to involve ZAI).

Approximately 4,300 additional PD claims were filed prior to the
March 31, 2003 claims bar date established by the Bankruptcy
Court.  (The March 31, 2003 claims bar date did not apply to ZAI
claims.)  Grace objected to virtually all PD claims on a number of
legal and factual bases.  As of December 31, 2011, approximately
430 PD Claims subject to the March 31, 2003 claims bar date remain
outstanding.  The Bankruptcy Court has approved settlement
agreements covering approximately 410 of such claims for an
aggregate allowed amount of $151.6 million.

Eight of the ZAI cases were filed as purported class action
lawsuits in 2000 and 2001.  In addition, 10 lawsuits were filed as
purported class actions in 2004 and 2005 with respect to persons
and homes in Canada.  These cases seek damages and equitable
relief, including the removal, replacement and/or disposal of all
such insulation.  The plaintiffs assert that this product is in
millions of homes and that the cost of removal could be several
thousand dollars per home.  As a result of the bankruptcy filing,
all these cases have been stayed.

Based on Grace's investigation of the claims described in these
lawsuits, and testing and analysis of this product by Grace and
others, Grace believes that ZAI was and continues to be safe for
its intended purpose and poses little or no threat to human
health.  The plaintiffs in the ZAI lawsuits dispute Grace's
position on the safety of ZAI.  In December 2006, the Bankruptcy
Court issued an opinion and order holding that, although ZAI is
contaminated with asbestos and can release asbestos fibers when
disturbed, there is no unreasonable risk of harm from ZAI.  In the
event that Grace's Joint Plan of Reorganization does not become
effective, the ZAI claimants have reserved their right to appeal
such opinion and order if and when it becomes a final order.


ZELTIQ: Faces Shareholder Class Action in California Over IPO
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders claim Zeltiq and
its top officers made false and misleading statements in the
registration statement and prospectus for its Initial Public
Offering, which raised $89.3 million, at $13 a share, in Alameda
County Court.

A copy of the Complaint in Marcano v. Nye, et al., Case No.
RG12621290 (Calif. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty.), is available at:

     http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/15/IPOCA.pdf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Casey E. Sadler, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150

               - and -

          Howard G. Smith, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, PA 19020
          Telephone: (215) 638-4847


* N.Y. Senator Urges FTC to Probe Mobile App Privacy Breaches
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Ankeny, writing for FierceMobileContent, reports that Sen.
Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) is urging the Federal Trade Commission to
investigate recent reports that mobile applications running
Apple's iOS and Google's Android can access user address books,
photos and other personal data without subscriber consent.

In a letter to the FTC, Sen. Schumer expressed concern over a
recent New York Times report indicating that an iOS security
loophole makes images stored on iPhone, iPad and iPod touch
devices vulnerable to downloaded applications that can copy the
user's entire photo library without any further notification or
warning. In addition to giving apps carte blanche access to photos
and videos, the loophole allows developers to mine corresponding
location data.  The first time an app wants to leverage location
data for mapping or any other purpose, the iOS device asks the
user for permission, generating a pop-up message that notes
approval "allows access to location information in photos and
videos."

A follow-up NYT report adds that Android applications can access
the same user information and copy photos to a secure remote
server without securing subscriber permission provided the app has
the right to go the Internet.  It is still not clear whether any
iOS or Android apps have actually exploited the security
vulnerabilities.

"When someone takes a private photo, on a private cell phone, it
should remain just that: private," Mr. Schumer writes to the FTC.

Mr. Schumer's letter also makes reference to the recent discovery
that some iOS apps can upload entire address books to their
servers, complete with names, telephone numbers and e-mail
addresses.  Last month, Apple said it would upgrade its software
so that developers can only access users' contact data after
receiving explicit permission to do so.  Apple made the
announcement after social networking app Path came under fire for
collecting and storing user contacts.

"These uses go well beyond what a reasonable user understands
himself to be consenting to when he allows an app to access data
on the phone for purposes of the app's functionality," Mr. Schumer
writes.  "It is not clear whether or how those terms of service
are being enforced and monitored . . . Smartphone makers should be
required to put in place safety measures to ensure third party
applications are not able to violate a user's personal privacy by
stealing photographs or data that the user did not consciously
decide to make public."

Apple and Google are among six leading technology firms that
agreed last month to expanded privacy protections for consumers
who download mobile applications to their smartphones and tablets.
California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris announced that Apple,
Google, Amazon.com, Research In Motion, Microsoft (NASDAQ:MSFT)
and Hewlett Packard consented to improved privacy principles that
bring the mobile ecosystem in line with the California Online
Privacy Protection Act, which requires operators of commercial web
sites and online services -- including mobile apps -- that collect
personally identifiable consumer data to post a privacy policy.
The agreement guarantees consumers the opportunity to review an
app's privacy policy prior to download rather than after, and will
offer consumers a consistent location for an app's privacy policy
on the device screen.

"This agreement strengthens the privacy protections of California
consumers and of millions of people around the globe who use
mobile apps," Mr. Harris said in a statement.  "By ensuring that
mobile apps have privacy policies, we create more transparency and
give mobile users more informed control over who accesses their
personal information and how it is used."  Mr. Harris will convene
the six mobile platform providers in six months to assess their
progress.


* Securities Class Action Settlements Hit Record Low in 2011
------------------------------------------------------------
The number of securities class action settlements approved in 2011
was the lowest in more than a decade, according to Securities
Class Action Settlements -- 2011 Review and Analysis, an annual
report by Cornerstone Research.  In 2011, there were 65 court-
approved securities class action settlements involving $1.4
billion in total settlement funds -- the lowest number of approved
settlements and corresponding total settlement dollars in more
than 10 years.  The number of settlements approved in 2011
decreased by almost 25 percent compared with 2010 and was more
than 35 percent below the average for the preceding 10 years.
Further, the total dollar value of settlements declined by 58
percent, from $3.2 billion in 2010 to $1.4 billion in 2011.  The
change in the number of settlements from 2010 to 2011 is one of
the two largest year-over-year declines and, combined with a year-
over-year decrease in settlements in 2010, the first time there
has been a decline in the number of settled cases for two
consecutive years.  The 2011 total settlement value of $1.4
billion is more than 50 percent below the next lowest value ($2.8
billion in 2003) for any of the years in the period from 2002 to
2010.

The median settlement amount for the 65 court-approved settlements
decreased substantially in 2011 to $5.8 million, an almost 50
percent decline from the $11.3 million median in 2010, and
represents the lowest median settlement amount in more than 10
years.  The average reported settlement amount also decreased from
$36.3 million reported in 2010 to $21.0 million in 2011 and
remains substantially below the average of $55.2 million for all
post-Reform Act settlements through 2010.  The decline in the
average settlement amount in 2011 is due in part to a decline in
very large settlements.  For the fourth consecutive year, no
single securities class action settlement exceeded $1 billion.

Median "estimated damages" decreased in 2011 by more than 40
percent from the median reported for cases settled in 2010. Since
"estimated damages" are the most important factor in determining
settlement amounts, the decrease in "estimated damages" in 2011
likely had a major impact on the decline in average settlement
amounts compared with 2010.  Average "estimated damages" for 2011
are the lowest since 2002.  This is consistent with the lower
average settlement amounts that we observe for the year-over-year
comparison as well as the longer-term comparison.

Commentary

Dr. Laura E. Simmons, Senior Advisor at Cornerstone Research:

"The decrease in the median settlement amount is surprising;
however, we can point to several factors in 2011 that contributed
to this decline.  Some of these factors are not likely to persist,
suggesting that settlement amounts may rise in the future.  For
example, accompanying SEC actions tend to be associated with
higher class action settlements, and while cases accompanied by
corresponding SEC actions were down this year, the SEC has
actually increased its level of enforcement activity in recent
years.  This suggests that all else equal, the number of class
actions with corresponding SEC actions will likely increase.
The trend in declining settlements parallels the decrease in
claims of traditional securities fraud against U.S. issuers over
the past decade."

Professor Joseph Grundfest, Director of the Stanford Law School
Securities Class Action Clearinghouse in cooperation with
Cornerstone Research:

"The class action securities fraud market is a business, just like
any other, and the 2011 settlements data indicate that plaintiffs
and their counsel are coming off of a weak year.  The softness in
the data suggests that plaintiffs have been settling a smaller
number cases at a lower price point than in the past.  Lawyers
will debate whether this decline is a result of plaintiffs having
brought weaker claims or prodefendant changes in the legal regime,
or some combination of the two, but the reality appears clear-the
really big litigation bucks were not in the class action
securities fraud market in 2011."

Additional Key Findings

Among settlements in 2011, allegations related to violations of
generally accepted accounting principles were included in only
about 45 percent of settled cases compared with nearly 70 percent
of settled cases in 2010 and 68 percent for the prior five years.
Settlements that included instances of a restatement (or
announcement of a possible restatement) of financials also
declined substantially from more than 40 percent for cases from
2006 to 2010 (and more than 45 percent for cases in 2010) to 25
percent in 2011.

Class action settlements involving accompanying SEC actions
decreased to less than 10 percent in 2011 compared with nearly 30
percent in 2010.

Compared with 2010, institutional involvement as lead plaintiffs
declined in 2011 to approximately 60 percent of settled cases.

The number of settled cases involving companion derivative actions
also decreased in 2011 compared with 2010.  Slightly less than 40
percent of cases settled in 2011 were accompanied by a derivative
action filing compared with more than 45 percent of cases settled
in 2010.  The 2011 percentage is still higher than the post-Reform
Act average of approximately 30 percent.

In 2011, the average class period length for cases settled was 1.3
years, 32 percent shorter than the average class period for the
prior five years and the lowest average for any single year during
that period.

The median Disclosure Dollar Loss-the dollar value decrease in the
defendant firm's market capitalization at the end of the class
period-decreased to $112 million in 2011, representing a 39
percent year-over-year decline and a 22 percent decline compared
with the median for the preceding five years.

The percentage of settlements involving underwriters in 2011
matched the all-time high of 26 percent reached in 2010.  As 60
percent of those cases that settled in 2011 had filing dates in
2007 and 2008, this increased level can be attributed to the
higher number of case filings involving Section 11 claims and
underwriter defendants during those years.  The percentage of
underwriter defendants also remained high among cases filed in
2009; thus, Cornerstone Research expects that the presence of an
underwriter defendant will continue to be a significant factor
among settlements in the near future as these cases reach the
settlement stage.

While filings of cases related to the credit crisis declined in
2011, settlements of these cases increased.  Included in the study
were 10 settlements in 2011 related to the credit crisis.
Overall, these cases continue to settle at a slower rate than
traditional cases.

The full text of the report is available at the Cornerstone
Research Web site at:

     http://www.cornerstone.com/post_reform_act_settlements


                           *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA.  Noemi Irene
A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Ivy B. Magdadaro, Psyche A. Castillon,
Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan
and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2012.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Peter Chapman
at 240/629-3300.





                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *